Atlas Shrugged (6/10)

I have a feeling that most reviewers are going to be either biased against or for the new adaptation of Atlas Shrugged based on their opinions about the book and its author Ayn Rand. I read Ebert's review before going to see it, and he just tore it apart. Before he even gets into his review he mentions how much he despises the ideals represented by the book. Maybe it helped lower my expectations, but I found the film to be quite watchable. Most every complaint Ebert had about the film was baseless.

But of course there were several minor problems with the film. If you've read the book you know that John Galt is some kind of famous non-entity, a shadowy figure that only the reader is allowed glimpses of. In the movie they literally put him in his own personal shadow that seems to follow him around. Very cheesy. And there was a potentially excellent moment of suspense as they first ride a train on Rearden steel that was almost completely wasted. Let's just say the directorial choices weren't as strong as they could have been.

But my biggest complaint is that they just didn't develop Dagny's character. It's a real shame they couldn't have kept Angelina Jolie, who was originally slated to play Dagny. Taylor Schilling is a lovely and talented actress, but she wasn't quite right for the part. That sort of mis-cast can be compensated by great direction and character moments, but that just doesn't happen here. Angelina practically is Dagny already. She's got an air of cold beauty. You can see the intelligence in her eyes and the way she talks. You wouldn't be surprised if she canceled Christmas and made everybody work through the holidays. But if you look deeper, you could see that she has a real compassion for what she sees as important. I'm rambling. Anyway, it's just a shame. It probably broke this film.

It's only Part 1, so the film ends abruptly after an emotional moment. The wikipedia article says that this is the first part in a trilogy, which is hard to imagine. They're moving through the plot so quickly that a lot of it probably won't make much sense unless you've read the book. Is there really that much left of the core story? Maybe Part 3 is reserved for a full reading of Galt's speech.

It's tempting to spend some time writing my opinions on objectivism, but since this is only Part 1, it really wouldn't make much sense. That kind of discussion would be more appropriate after the story's end, or perhaps in a review about the book itself.

As for the film, I recommend it to anyone who has read the book. Anyone else will probably just be lost. And it's not a "good film" in and of itself. Like the book, it is only interesting as a means of conveying the ideas of the author.

Comments welcome!

Killers (7/10)

It's summer again! And I've been feeling a like a few more movie reviews are in order! So this weekend Killers opened, and it's one that I've been looking forward to since seeing the trailer. Well, the movie didn't quite live up to the fun trailer, but it was close! The trailer was funny, but the movie was more of a mix of tension and light-heartedness. I really enjoyed it, despite a few minor complaints about technical details and small plot holes. Katherine Heigl is gorgeous as always, and Ashton Kutcher seems to have matured somewhat as an actor (and he's still really buff). Overall, I recommend it for anyone who's up for a an action/romance combo.


Comments welcome!

Julie & Julia (9/10)

I don't know much about cooking, but I do know a thing or two about movies and acting, and Julie & Julia is a feast! The casting is just perfect. Meryl Streep as Julia Child is an inspired choice. And there are few people who could pull off an "impression" of a famous person and still make it authentic and deep. Look for Streep to get another Oscar nod here. Of course, Amy Adams is also a delight, and this part is perfect for her. Though the two never share a scene, you really feel the connection between them. This is done through the masterful blending of the two stories, so that even though you know what happens at the end of Julie's story (you are watching her film after all), you can't help but be thrilled by her real-life emotional journey.


Comments welcome!

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (8.5/10)

Yeah, I used to watch G.I. Joe cartoons when I was a kid, but I don't remember anything about them. It's probably a good thing, too, because I couldn't have enjoyed G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra if I was spending the whole time nit-picking about the differences. And I did thoroughly enjoy it!

Of course it is important to manage your expectations when walking into an action movie based on a long-dead franchise. Like the Transformers movies, you're not going to see any Oscar nominations for G.I. Joe. But if that's what you are looking for when you walk into the theater, you have serious issues. What you should be looking for is a series of escalating action sequences, some cool gadgets and special effects, and some good looking actors who can deliver their lines without stumbling too much. And for this, G.I. Joe delivers. And it does it in a way that is slick, creative, and a lot of fun to watch.

One thing I do remember about the original cartoon: nobody ever died. There was lots of gunfire and explosions, but heroes and villains alike always got up to regroup and start the fight again in the next episode. They even had people parachuting out of exploding helicopters! That is not how the movie works, and thank goodness! High tech weaponry has deadly consequences, and the movie doesn't flinch from the many brutal ways those cartoonish weapons will tear a person apart. Take note kids, guns really do kill people. Don't try this at home.


Comments welcome!

G-Force in 3-D (8/10)

I went off on a rant a few weeks back about how horrible 3-D films are, and how I am sickened by their recent resurgence. A friend argued the other side, and since I value his opinion, I decided to try re-evaluating my opinion. I used Disney's recent live-action/CGI-animation film G-Force as a test. First I watched it in 3-D. The glasses still felt horrible and awkward, and hurt my nose and eyes. But I have to admit, the 3-D effects weren't that bad. I didn't feel ejected from the "suspension of disbelief" like previous 3-D films. The film was quite a bit of fun, with a few real standout spectacular scenes!

Then a few days later I slipped into a 2-D screening that was midway through the film. It seemed quite bland by comparison, and one of my favorite scenes from the 3-D version (the fireworks) didn't seem all that spectacular anymore. And the complex moving set in the climactic scene was hard to follow and visually interpret, whereas the 3-D version helped to distinguish the multiple levels of action.

So I have to admit, 3-D movies have begun to evolve. Even though I think they missed a few obvious camera angles that would have really benefited from the 3-D treatment, this film was obviously much more creative than the cheap gimmicky films of the past.

Now if they can just make those stupid glasses comfortable, I might be able to give 3-D the thumbs up.


Comments welcome!

Drag Me To Hell (3/10)

I'm not a fan of the horror genre, but I'd heard good things about Drag Me To Hell. I heard wrong. This was bad. I mean bad acting, bad plot, obvious "twist", the works. But two things set it apart from standard horror. One, this is more of a gross-out movie than hack and slash. I lost count of the vile things that get splashed into the girl's face and mouth. I suppose that's funny to some people. The other thing is that the production value is good, and considering that Sam Raimi is a big time film maker these days, that's not too surprising. But it's certainly not going to make this into a good film.

Land of the Lost (5/10)

There's a recurring theme in comedy. A tradition that goes back hundreds of years. It's the role of the "idiot". Some modern comedies seem to have seized on the idea that the idiot is where all the funny stuff comes from, and therefor movies will be funnier if ALL of the characters are idiots. The higher quality comedies (like The Hangover) realize that the idiot is only funny as a contrast to the normal people. Land of the Lost doesn't commit to either philosophy. The creators of this film think the best humor is when most people act like idiots most of the time, but occasionally rise to the level of normal brain function, regardless of the character. Will Farrell portrays Dr. Rick Marshall, a genius scientist and inventor, and is naturally the primary idiot. He's an idiot all of the time, and his flashes of brilliance come out of nowhere with no plausibility. Anna Friel is Holly Cantrell, the naive and optimistic young grad student, and she is the fool who follows the idiot. She is mostly normal, but comes off like an idiot when she treats Marshall like he's normal. And lastly, the character who should be the only idiot of the bunch, Danny McBride plays Will Stanton, a guy who runs a desert tourist trap and gets sucked into their wacky adventure. Will is the only consistent character in the group (mostly idiot with some street smarts).

You may have noticed that the three leads are not related like in the original TV series. That's because it would be inappropriate for Will Farrell to make out with Anna Friel if they were supposed to be father and daughter.

The saddest part is that you can almost see the movie that could have been. If Farrell had been cast as the idiot who gets pulled along for the ride and the two scientists had been portrayed as almost normal, it could have been good. Cut out the scenes that are nothing more than Farrell pouring dinosaur urine on himself, and add in a plot twist or two to throw us off the movie's big glaring obvious plot twist, and it could have been something.

The exchange that sums up the movie: Will: "You ever tired of being wrong?" Marshall: "I do! I really do!"

It's only funny because it's true.